[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets archived.
This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search results
in google. Also, http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example
seems to confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and this site
even mentions the alternative name, spelling it "leucorhoda" though. Many
sites however just list phal philippinensis as a species phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid or a
separate species, or whether those who identify this as a species just do so
to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
| Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet orchid
| vendor,
| seems like such a long time ago.
| --
| Cheers Wendy
|
| Remove PETERPAN for email reply
|
| J Fortuna wrote:
| Wendy,
| Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by Rod
| from Venger's Orchids:
|
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
| Best,
| Joanna
|
| "wendy7" wrote in message
| news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
| This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any info on
| it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
| It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
| pink?
| --
| Cheers Wendy
|
| Remove PETERPAN for email reply
|
|

[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets archived.
This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search results
in google. Also, http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example
seems to confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and this site
even mentions the alternative name, spelling it "leucorhoda" though. Many
sites however just list phal philippinensis as a species phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid or a
separate species, or whether those who identify this as a species just do so
to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
| Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet orchid
| vendor,
| seems like such a long time ago.
| --
| Cheers Wendy
|
| Remove PETERPAN for email reply
|
| J Fortuna wrote:
| Wendy,
| Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by Rod
| from Venger's Orchids:
|
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
| Best,
| Joanna
|
| "wendy7" wrote in message
| news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
| This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any info on
| it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
| It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
| pink?
| --
| Cheers Wendy
|
| Remove PETERPAN for email reply
|
|

[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets archived.
This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search results
in google. Also, http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example
seems to confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and this site
even mentions the alternative name, spelling it "leucorhoda" though. Many
sites however just list phal philippinensis as a species phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid or a
separate species, or whether those who identify this as a species just do so
to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
| Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet orchid
| vendor,
| seems like such a long time ago.
| --
| Cheers Wendy
|
| Remove PETERPAN for email reply
|
| J Fortuna wrote:
| Wendy,
| Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by Rod
| from Venger's Orchids:
|
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
| Best,
| Joanna
|
| "wendy7" wrote in message
| news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
| This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any info on
| it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
| It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
| pink?
| --
| Cheers Wendy
|
| Remove PETERPAN for email reply
|
|

Hi Joanna, thanks for posting this. I find all this naming so mind boggling
& then
when searching it gets worse! (The mind, that is?)
I found a pic of Phal. Leuchorroda that looks just like mine so will make
notes of the
natural cross. I guess nothing is written in stone?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets
archived. This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search
results in google. Also,
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example seems to
confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and this
site even mentions the alternative name, spelling it "leucorhoda"
though. Many sites however just list phal philippinensis as a species
phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid or
a separate species, or whether those who identify this as a species
just do so to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet
orchid vendor,
seems like such a long time ago.
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
Wendy,
Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by Rod
from Venger's Orchids:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
Best,
Joanna

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any info
on it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
pink?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

Hi Joanna, thanks for posting this. I find all this naming so mind boggling
& then
when searching it gets worse! (The mind, that is?)
I found a pic of Phal. Leuchorroda that looks just like mine so will make
notes of the
natural cross. I guess nothing is written in stone?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets
archived. This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search
results in google. Also,
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example seems to
confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and this
site even mentions the alternative name, spelling it "leucorhoda"
though. Many sites however just list phal philippinensis as a species
phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid or
a separate species, or whether those who identify this as a species
just do so to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet
orchid vendor,
seems like such a long time ago.
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
Wendy,
Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by Rod
from Venger's Orchids:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
Best,
Joanna

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any info
on it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
pink?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

Hi Joanna, thanks for posting this. I find all this naming so mind boggling
& then
when searching it gets worse! (The mind, that is?)
I found a pic of Phal. Leuchorroda that looks just like mine so will make
notes of the
natural cross. I guess nothing is written in stone?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets
archived. This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search
results in google. Also,
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example seems to
confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and this
site even mentions the alternative name, spelling it "leucorhoda"
though. Many sites however just list phal philippinensis as a species
phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid or
a separate species, or whether those who identify this as a species
just do so to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet
orchid vendor,
seems like such a long time ago.
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
Wendy,
Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by Rod
from Venger's Orchids:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
Best,
Joanna

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any info
on it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
pink?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

Hi Joanna, thanks for posting this. I find all this naming so mind boggling
& then
when searching it gets worse! (The mind, that is?)
I found a pic of Phal. Leuchorroda that looks just like mine so will make
notes of the
natural cross. I guess nothing is written in stone?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets
archived. This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search
results in google. Also,
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example seems to
confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and this
site even mentions the alternative name, spelling it "leucorhoda"
though. Many sites however just list phal philippinensis as a species
phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid or
a separate species, or whether those who identify this as a species
just do so to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet
orchid vendor,
seems like such a long time ago.
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
Wendy,
Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by Rod
from Venger's Orchids:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
Best,
Joanna

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any info
on it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
pink?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

While I don't like confusion in naming plants and animals and I understand
the havoc that can plat for commercial horticulturalists and private
collectors, I find it helpful to examine the history behind it and the
reasons different taxonomists give for making distinctions.

Here is what Christenson has to say that is of some relevance.

"phal philippinensis being a natural hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X
Phal.schilleriana"

In his enry for P. philippinensis, he says:
"When P. philippinensis was first discovered and brought into cultivation,
it was confused with the similar P. x leucorrhoda."

In his entry for P. x leucorrhoda, he says:
"This is a naurally occuring hybrd between P. aphrodite and P.
schilleriana."

and:
"When first introduced, P. philippinensis was consistently confused with P.
x leucorrhoda. The calli of the two entities are quite different: in P. x
leucorrhoda the posterior corners of the callus are sharply pointed teeth;
in P. philippinensis the posterior corners of the callus are broadly
rounded."

In his entry for P. aphrodite, he says:
"Phalaenopsis aphrodite has been confused with P. amabilis, whose flowers
are very similar. In addition to having distinct ranges, with P. amabilis
only recorded from the southern Philippines, there callus structures are
distinct. Phalaenopsis aphrodite has the posterior edge of the callus
divided into four teeth. This is unlike the callus of P. amabilis, which is
divided into only two teeth." (He had previously written that P. aphrodite
was from northern Philippines and Taiwan.)

And under P. amabilis, he says:
"Lindley was confused over the identification of the true P.amabilis and
consistently applied that name to plants of P. aphrodite. As a result of
this confusion, Lindley needed a name for this 'other' species and he
redescribed true P. amabilis as P. grandiflora."

and:
"One ongoing confusion with P. amabilis is the application of the name to
white flowered plants originating from southern Taiwan. Those Taiwanese
plants ae correctly a subspecies of P. aphrodite." " No true P. amabilis
has been recorded from Taiwan or its neighboring islands."

What a mess! The naming confusion appears to arise from disagreements
between taxonomists. And, one has to think about the question: "Is a
difference in the callus, of the sort Christenson describes, sufficient to
regard a given pair of plants as being from different species rather than as
merely different races of the same species?" And, "What if such a
difference is correlated with distinct ranges?" After all, it seems that
distinctions among most of the species and hybrids mentioned above are
based, at least by Christenson, on what seem like modest differences in the
callus.

I wonder how many species of Man would have been identified by modern
taxonomists had hominids been classified using the same methods as those
used for orchids. It seems to me that the physiognomic variability in Man
is much greater than it is in the whole genus Phalaenopsis.

Ah the hazards of taxonomy when we don't have a solid theoretically valid
understanding of what species are or how to apply such an understanding in
the real world. I'd suggest that the primary reason modern taxonomy is mind
boggling is that it occurs largely in a theoretical vaccume, and is in
practice more like a suite of personality cults; with arguments based on the
opinions of authority figures rather than on real science.

Does this help, or add to your confusion? :-)

Cheers,

Ted

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:e903c.24$Lg.7@fed1read02...
Hi Joanna, thanks for posting this. I find all this naming so mind
boggling
& then
when searching it gets worse! (The mind, that is?)
I found a pic of Phal. Leuchorroda that looks just like mine so will make
notes of the
natural cross. I guess nothing is written in stone?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets
archived. This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search
results in google. Also,
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example seems to
confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and this
site even mentions the alternative name, spelling it "leucorhoda"
though. Many sites however just list phal philippinensis as a species
phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid or
a separate species, or whether those who identify this as a species
just do so to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet
orchid vendor,
seems like such a long time ago.
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
Wendy,
Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by Rod
from Venger's Orchids:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
Best,
Joanna

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any info
on it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
pink?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

While I don't like confusion in naming plants and animals and I understand
the havoc that can plat for commercial horticulturalists and private
collectors, I find it helpful to examine the history behind it and the
reasons different taxonomists give for making distinctions.

Here is what Christenson has to say that is of some relevance.

"phal philippinensis being a natural hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X
Phal.schilleriana"

In his enry for P. philippinensis, he says:
"When P. philippinensis was first discovered and brought into cultivation,
it was confused with the similar P. x leucorrhoda."

In his entry for P. x leucorrhoda, he says:
"This is a naurally occuring hybrd between P. aphrodite and P.
schilleriana."

and:
"When first introduced, P. philippinensis was consistently confused with P.
x leucorrhoda. The calli of the two entities are quite different: in P. x
leucorrhoda the posterior corners of the callus are sharply pointed teeth;
in P. philippinensis the posterior corners of the callus are broadly
rounded."

In his entry for P. aphrodite, he says:
"Phalaenopsis aphrodite has been confused with P. amabilis, whose flowers
are very similar. In addition to having distinct ranges, with P. amabilis
only recorded from the southern Philippines, there callus structures are
distinct. Phalaenopsis aphrodite has the posterior edge of the callus
divided into four teeth. This is unlike the callus of P. amabilis, which is
divided into only two teeth." (He had previously written that P. aphrodite
was from northern Philippines and Taiwan.)

And under P. amabilis, he says:
"Lindley was confused over the identification of the true P.amabilis and
consistently applied that name to plants of P. aphrodite. As a result of
this confusion, Lindley needed a name for this 'other' species and he
redescribed true P. amabilis as P. grandiflora."

and:
"One ongoing confusion with P. amabilis is the application of the name to
white flowered plants originating from southern Taiwan. Those Taiwanese
plants ae correctly a subspecies of P. aphrodite." " No true P. amabilis
has been recorded from Taiwan or its neighboring islands."

What a mess! The naming confusion appears to arise from disagreements
between taxonomists. And, one has to think about the question: "Is a
difference in the callus, of the sort Christenson describes, sufficient to
regard a given pair of plants as being from different species rather than as
merely different races of the same species?" And, "What if such a
difference is correlated with distinct ranges?" After all, it seems that
distinctions among most of the species and hybrids mentioned above are
based, at least by Christenson, on what seem like modest differences in the
callus.

I wonder how many species of Man would have been identified by modern
taxonomists had hominids been classified using the same methods as those
used for orchids. It seems to me that the physiognomic variability in Man
is much greater than it is in the whole genus Phalaenopsis.

Ah the hazards of taxonomy when we don't have a solid theoretically valid
understanding of what species are or how to apply such an understanding in
the real world. I'd suggest that the primary reason modern taxonomy is mind
boggling is that it occurs largely in a theoretical vaccume, and is in
practice more like a suite of personality cults; with arguments based on the
opinions of authority figures rather than on real science.

Does this help, or add to your confusion? :-)

Cheers,

Ted

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:e903c.24$Lg.7@fed1read02...
Hi Joanna, thanks for posting this. I find all this naming so mind
boggling
& then
when searching it gets worse! (The mind, that is?)
I found a pic of Phal. Leuchorroda that looks just like mine so will make
notes of the
natural cross. I guess nothing is written in stone?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets
archived. This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search
results in google. Also,
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example seems to
confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and this
site even mentions the alternative name, spelling it "leucorhoda"
though. Many sites however just list phal philippinensis as a species
phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid or
a separate species, or whether those who identify this as a species
just do so to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet
orchid vendor,
seems like such a long time ago.
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
Wendy,
Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by Rod
from Venger's Orchids:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
Best,
Joanna

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any info
on it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
pink?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

While I don't like confusion in naming plants and animals and I understand
the havoc that can plat for commercial horticulturalists and private
collectors, I find it helpful to examine the history behind it and the
reasons different taxonomists give for making distinctions.

Here is what Christenson has to say that is of some relevance.

"phal philippinensis being a natural hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X
Phal.schilleriana"

In his enry for P. philippinensis, he says:
"When P. philippinensis was first discovered and brought into cultivation,
it was confused with the similar P. x leucorrhoda."

In his entry for P. x leucorrhoda, he says:
"This is a naurally occuring hybrd between P. aphrodite and P.
schilleriana."

and:
"When first introduced, P. philippinensis was consistently confused with P.
x leucorrhoda. The calli of the two entities are quite different: in P. x
leucorrhoda the posterior corners of the callus are sharply pointed teeth;
in P. philippinensis the posterior corners of the callus are broadly
rounded."

In his entry for P. aphrodite, he says:
"Phalaenopsis aphrodite has been confused with P. amabilis, whose flowers
are very similar. In addition to having distinct ranges, with P. amabilis
only recorded from the southern Philippines, there callus structures are
distinct. Phalaenopsis aphrodite has the posterior edge of the callus
divided into four teeth. This is unlike the callus of P. amabilis, which is
divided into only two teeth." (He had previously written that P. aphrodite
was from northern Philippines and Taiwan.)

And under P. amabilis, he says:
"Lindley was confused over the identification of the true P.amabilis and
consistently applied that name to plants of P. aphrodite. As a result of
this confusion, Lindley needed a name for this 'other' species and he
redescribed true P. amabilis as P. grandiflora."

and:
"One ongoing confusion with P. amabilis is the application of the name to
white flowered plants originating from southern Taiwan. Those Taiwanese
plants ae correctly a subspecies of P. aphrodite." " No true P. amabilis
has been recorded from Taiwan or its neighboring islands."

What a mess! The naming confusion appears to arise from disagreements
between taxonomists. And, one has to think about the question: "Is a
difference in the callus, of the sort Christenson describes, sufficient to
regard a given pair of plants as being from different species rather than as
merely different races of the same species?" And, "What if such a
difference is correlated with distinct ranges?" After all, it seems that
distinctions among most of the species and hybrids mentioned above are
based, at least by Christenson, on what seem like modest differences in the
callus.

I wonder how many species of Man would have been identified by modern
taxonomists had hominids been classified using the same methods as those
used for orchids. It seems to me that the physiognomic variability in Man
is much greater than it is in the whole genus Phalaenopsis.

Ah the hazards of taxonomy when we don't have a solid theoretically valid
understanding of what species are or how to apply such an understanding in
the real world. I'd suggest that the primary reason modern taxonomy is mind
boggling is that it occurs largely in a theoretical vaccume, and is in
practice more like a suite of personality cults; with arguments based on the
opinions of authority figures rather than on real science.

Does this help, or add to your confusion? :-)

Cheers,

Ted

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:e903c.24$Lg.7@fed1read02...
Hi Joanna, thanks for posting this. I find all this naming so mind
boggling
& then
when searching it gets worse! (The mind, that is?)
I found a pic of Phal. Leuchorroda that looks just like mine so will make
notes of the
natural cross. I guess nothing is written in stone?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets
archived. This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search
results in google. Also,
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example seems to
confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and this
site even mentions the alternative name, spelling it "leucorhoda"
though. Many sites however just list phal philippinensis as a species
phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid or
a separate species, or whether those who identify this as a species
just do so to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet
orchid vendor,
seems like such a long time ago.
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
Wendy,
Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by Rod
from Venger's Orchids:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
Best,
Joanna

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any info
on it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
pink?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

Ted,

I understood from all this that Phal leucorrhoda is for all practical
purposes approximately synonymous to Phal phillipinensis, and anyone who
thinks otherwise is probably a taxonomist, taxodermist, tax attorney, or
similar sub-species of Man.

Thanks for the clarification,
Joanna

"Ted Byers" wrote in message
...
While I don't like confusion in naming plants and animals and I understand
the havoc that can plat for commercial horticulturalists and private
collectors, I find it helpful to examine the history behind it and the
reasons different taxonomists give for making distinctions.

Here is what Christenson has to say that is of some relevance.

"phal philippinensis being a natural hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite
X
Phal.schilleriana"

In his enry for P. philippinensis, he says:
"When P. philippinensis was first discovered and brought into cultivation,
it was confused with the similar P. x leucorrhoda."

In his entry for P. x leucorrhoda, he says:
"This is a naurally occuring hybrd between P. aphrodite and P.
schilleriana."

and:
"When first introduced, P. philippinensis was consistently confused with
P.
x leucorrhoda. The calli of the two entities are quite different: in P. x
leucorrhoda the posterior corners of the callus are sharply pointed teeth;
in P. philippinensis the posterior corners of the callus are broadly
rounded."

In his entry for P. aphrodite, he says:
"Phalaenopsis aphrodite has been confused with P. amabilis, whose flowers
are very similar. In addition to having distinct ranges, with P. amabilis
only recorded from the southern Philippines, there callus structures are
distinct. Phalaenopsis aphrodite has the posterior edge of the callus
divided into four teeth. This is unlike the callus of P. amabilis, which
is
divided into only two teeth." (He had previously written that P. aphrodite
was from northern Philippines and Taiwan.)

And under P. amabilis, he says:
"Lindley was confused over the identification of the true P.amabilis and
consistently applied that name to plants of P. aphrodite. As a result of
this confusion, Lindley needed a name for this 'other' species and he
redescribed true P. amabilis as P. grandiflora."

and:
"One ongoing confusion with P. amabilis is the application of the name to
white flowered plants originating from southern Taiwan. Those Taiwanese
plants ae correctly a subspecies of P. aphrodite." " No true P. amabilis
has been recorded from Taiwan or its neighboring islands."

What a mess! The naming confusion appears to arise from disagreements
between taxonomists. And, one has to think about the question: "Is a
difference in the callus, of the sort Christenson describes, sufficient to
regard a given pair of plants as being from different species rather than
as
merely different races of the same species?" And, "What if such a
difference is correlated with distinct ranges?" After all, it seems that
distinctions among most of the species and hybrids mentioned above are
based, at least by Christenson, on what seem like modest differences in
the
callus.

I wonder how many species of Man would have been identified by modern
taxonomists had hominids been classified using the same methods as those
used for orchids. It seems to me that the physiognomic variability in Man
is much greater than it is in the whole genus Phalaenopsis.

Ah the hazards of taxonomy when we don't have a solid theoretically valid
understanding of what species are or how to apply such an understanding in
the real world. I'd suggest that the primary reason modern taxonomy is
mind
boggling is that it occurs largely in a theoretical vaccume, and is in
practice more like a suite of personality cults; with arguments based on
the
opinions of authority figures rather than on real science.

Does this help, or add to your confusion? :-)

Cheers,

Ted

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:e903c.24$Lg.7@fed1read02...
Hi Joanna, thanks for posting this. I find all this naming so mind
boggling
& then
when searching it gets worse! (The mind, that is?)
I found a pic of Phal. Leuchorroda that looks just like mine so will
make
notes of the
natural cross. I guess nothing is written in stone?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets
archived. This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search
results in google. Also,
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example seems to
confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and this
site even mentions the alternative name, spelling it "leucorhoda"
though. Many sites however just list phal philippinensis as a species
phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid or
a separate species, or whether those who identify this as a species
just do so to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet
orchid vendor,
seems like such a long time ago.
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
Wendy,
Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by Rod
from Venger's Orchids:


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
Best,
Joanna

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any info
on it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
pink?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

Ted,

I understood from all this that Phal leucorrhoda is for all practical
purposes approximately synonymous to Phal phillipinensis, and anyone who
thinks otherwise is probably a taxonomist, taxodermist, tax attorney, or
similar sub-species of Man.

Thanks for the clarification,
Joanna

"Ted Byers" wrote in message
...
While I don't like confusion in naming plants and animals and I understand
the havoc that can plat for commercial horticulturalists and private
collectors, I find it helpful to examine the history behind it and the
reasons different taxonomists give for making distinctions.

Here is what Christenson has to say that is of some relevance.

"phal philippinensis being a natural hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite
X
Phal.schilleriana"

In his enry for P. philippinensis, he says:
"When P. philippinensis was first discovered and brought into cultivation,
it was confused with the similar P. x leucorrhoda."

In his entry for P. x leucorrhoda, he says:
"This is a naurally occuring hybrd between P. aphrodite and P.
schilleriana."

and:
"When first introduced, P. philippinensis was consistently confused with
P.
x leucorrhoda. The calli of the two entities are quite different: in P. x
leucorrhoda the posterior corners of the callus are sharply pointed teeth;
in P. philippinensis the posterior corners of the callus are broadly
rounded."

In his entry for P. aphrodite, he says:
"Phalaenopsis aphrodite has been confused with P. amabilis, whose flowers
are very similar. In addition to having distinct ranges, with P. amabilis
only recorded from the southern Philippines, there callus structures are
distinct. Phalaenopsis aphrodite has the posterior edge of the callus
divided into four teeth. This is unlike the callus of P. amabilis, which
is
divided into only two teeth." (He had previously written that P. aphrodite
was from northern Philippines and Taiwan.)

And under P. amabilis, he says:
"Lindley was confused over the identification of the true P.amabilis and
consistently applied that name to plants of P. aphrodite. As a result of
this confusion, Lindley needed a name for this 'other' species and he
redescribed true P. amabilis as P. grandiflora."

and:
"One ongoing confusion with P. amabilis is the application of the name to
white flowered plants originating from southern Taiwan. Those Taiwanese
plants ae correctly a subspecies of P. aphrodite." " No true P. amabilis
has been recorded from Taiwan or its neighboring islands."

What a mess! The naming confusion appears to arise from disagreements
between taxonomists. And, one has to think about the question: "Is a
difference in the callus, of the sort Christenson describes, sufficient to
regard a given pair of plants as being from different species rather than
as
merely different races of the same species?" And, "What if such a
difference is correlated with distinct ranges?" After all, it seems that
distinctions among most of the species and hybrids mentioned above are
based, at least by Christenson, on what seem like modest differences in
the
callus.

I wonder how many species of Man would have been identified by modern
taxonomists had hominids been classified using the same methods as those
used for orchids. It seems to me that the physiognomic variability in Man
is much greater than it is in the whole genus Phalaenopsis.

Ah the hazards of taxonomy when we don't have a solid theoretically valid
understanding of what species are or how to apply such an understanding in
the real world. I'd suggest that the primary reason modern taxonomy is
mind
boggling is that it occurs largely in a theoretical vaccume, and is in
practice more like a suite of personality cults; with arguments based on
the
opinions of authority figures rather than on real science.

Does this help, or add to your confusion? :-)

Cheers,

Ted

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:e903c.24$Lg.7@fed1read02...
Hi Joanna, thanks for posting this. I find all this naming so mind
boggling
& then
when searching it gets worse! (The mind, that is?)
I found a pic of Phal. Leuchorroda that looks just like mine so will
make
notes of the
natural cross. I guess nothing is written in stone?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets
archived. This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search
results in google. Also,
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example seems to
confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and this
site even mentions the alternative name, spelling it "leucorhoda"
though. Many sites however just list phal philippinensis as a species
phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid or
a separate species, or whether those who identify this as a species
just do so to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet
orchid vendor,
seems like such a long time ago.
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
Wendy,
Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by Rod
from Venger's Orchids:


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
Best,
Joanna

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any info
on it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
pink?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

Thank you so much Ted for all this info. I get the feeling that these guys
just
wanted to get their names & findings down on record? An ego thing! *g*
In the mean time since my tag reads Phal. Leuchorroda, I will add the
data to my d/base for referance.
Thanks again for you precious time.
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
Ted,

I understood from all this that Phal leucorrhoda is for all practical
purposes approximately synonymous to Phal phillipinensis, and anyone
who thinks otherwise is probably a taxonomist, taxodermist, tax
attorney, or similar sub-species of Man.

Thanks for the clarification,
Joanna

"Ted Byers" wrote in message
...
While I don't like confusion in naming plants and animals and I
understand the havoc that can plat for commercial horticulturalists
and private collectors, I find it helpful to examine the history
behind it and the reasons different taxonomists give for making
distinctions.

Here is what Christenson has to say that is of some relevance.

"phal philippinensis being a natural hybrid of Phal.amabilis
var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana"

In his enry for P. philippinensis, he says:
"When P. philippinensis was first discovered and brought into
cultivation, it was confused with the similar P. x leucorrhoda."

In his entry for P. x leucorrhoda, he says:
"This is a naurally occuring hybrd between P. aphrodite and P.
schilleriana."

and:
"When first introduced, P. philippinensis was consistently confused
with P. x leucorrhoda. The calli of the two entities are quite
different: in P. x leucorrhoda the posterior corners of the callus
are sharply pointed teeth; in P. philippinensis the posterior
corners of the callus are broadly rounded."

In his entry for P. aphrodite, he says:
"Phalaenopsis aphrodite has been confused with P. amabilis, whose
flowers are very similar. In addition to having distinct ranges,
with P. amabilis only recorded from the southern Philippines, there
callus structures are distinct. Phalaenopsis aphrodite has the
posterior edge of the callus divided into four teeth. This is
unlike the callus of P. amabilis, which is divided into only two
teeth." (He had previously written that P. aphrodite was from
northern Philippines and Taiwan.)

And under P. amabilis, he says:
"Lindley was confused over the identification of the true P.amabilis
and consistently applied that name to plants of P. aphrodite. As a
result of this confusion, Lindley needed a name for this 'other'
species and he redescribed true P. amabilis as P. grandiflora."

and:
"One ongoing confusion with P. amabilis is the application of the
name to white flowered plants originating from southern Taiwan.
Those Taiwanese plants ae correctly a subspecies of P. aphrodite."
" No true P. amabilis has been recorded from Taiwan or its
neighboring islands."

What a mess! The naming confusion appears to arise from
disagreements between taxonomists. And, one has to think about the
question: "Is a difference in the callus, of the sort Christenson
describes, sufficient to regard a given pair of plants as being from
different species rather than as merely different races of the same
species?" And, "What if such a difference is correlated with
distinct ranges?" After all, it seems that distinctions among most
of the species and hybrids mentioned above are based, at least by
Christenson, on what seem like modest differences in the callus.

I wonder how many species of Man would have been identified by modern
taxonomists had hominids been classified using the same methods as
those used for orchids. It seems to me that the physiognomic
variability in Man is much greater than it is in the whole genus
Phalaenopsis.

Ah the hazards of taxonomy when we don't have a solid theoretically
valid understanding of what species are or how to apply such an
understanding in the real world. I'd suggest that the primary
reason modern taxonomy is mind boggling is that it occurs largely in
a theoretical vaccume, and is in practice more like a suite of
personality cults; with arguments based on the opinions of authority
figures rather than on real science.

Does this help, or add to your confusion? :-)

Cheers,

Ted

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:e903c.24$Lg.7@fed1read02...
Hi Joanna, thanks for posting this. I find all this naming so mind
boggling & then
when searching it gets worse! (The mind, that is?)
I found a pic of Phal. Leuchorroda that looks just like mine so
will make notes of the
natural cross. I guess nothing is written in stone?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
[I am double-posting this message to rgo, so that this thread gets
archived. This is a thread started on abpo]

Claude,

Hmm, very interesting. Does the Syn. stand for "synonym"?

Phal philippinensis certainly seems to result in a lot more search
results in google. Also,
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~fk8t-tnk/q-phi.htm for example seems to
confirm Rod's statement about phal philippinensis being a natural
hybrid of Phal.amabilis var.aphrodite X Phal.schilleriana -- and
this site even mentions the alternative name, spelling it
"leucorhoda" though. Many sites however just list phal
philippinensis as a species phal.

I wonder whether there is debate about this being a natural hybrid
or a separate species, or whether those who identify this as a
species just do so to simplify the description?

Joanna

"Claude" wrote in message
s.com...
This is what I found:

Phal. leuchorroda Syn. Phal. philippinensis

the site:
http://www.sorellaorchids.com/orchid_list.htm

Hope this help!

Claude


"wendy7" wrote in message
news:R1U2c.35167$qL1.16649@fed1read02...
Thanks much Joanna, interestingly Rod was my very first internet
orchid vendor,
seems like such a long time ago.
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply

J Fortuna wrote:
Wendy,
Here is some info on Phal Leuchorroda posted in rgo in 1997 by
Rod from Venger's Orchids:


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ers.com&rnum=1
Best,
Joanna

"wendy7" wrote in message
news:RcS2c.35152$qL1.26299@fed1read02...
This phal is labelled Phal. leuchorroda. Have not found any
info on it? It is mounted on a 5x6" piece of cork bark.
It has mottled leaves and two spikes, one is more
pink?
--
Cheers Wendy

Remove PETERPAN for email reply